Ballots to remain uncounted in MI and Stein blocked in Philly. Guest: Election integrity, law expert Paul Lehto says this proves 'only option is to get it right on Election Night'. Also: Trump taps climate denier, fossil-fuel tool for EPA...

Last June, 42% of Americans in a Zogby poll felt that Bush should be impeached if he lied about the War on Iraq while 50% opposed.

Earlier this month, in a new poll by Ipsos, a majority of 50% were in favor of impeachment, while just 44% were opposed.

And today, the latest poll from Zogby asking the same question, says 53% support impeachment of Bush while just 42% oppose.

In the meantime, even while the Mainstream Media were relentlessly discussing impeachment every day, wall-to-wall, about Bill Clinton back in September and August of 1998 (while hardly mentioning it today in relation to Bush) "only 36% supported hearings to consider impeachment, and only 26% supported actual impeachment and removal" according to a study of 16 major polls which asked the question back then (versus the 3 major polls now, 2 of them which had to be funded by American citizens donating to AfterDowningStreet.org.)

UPDATE: Two commenters have taken us to task for what they consider to be a misleading headline on this item, noting that the 53% who "support Bush Impeachment," as the headline states were answering whether or not they would do so "if President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq."

Though we did make that point clear in the first sentence of the article, the commenters (one of them an habitual troll here at BRAD BLOG, but we do not discriminate) still had a problem with the headline.

When we posted this article, what we didn't delve into (mostly due to lack of time) was what the sponsors of the poll --- who similarly headlined their article announcing the results as "53% of Americans Support Impeachment," by the way --- also discussed how many Americans feel already that "Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq."

From their article:

Other polls show a majority of U.S. adults believe that Bush did in fact lie about the reasons for war. A June 23-26 ABC/Washington Post poll found 52% of Americans believe the Bush administration "deliberately misled the public before the war," and 57% say the Bush administration "intentionally exaggerated its evidence that pre-war Iraq possessed nuclear, chemical or biological weapons." Support for the war has dropped significantly since June, which suggests that the percentage of Americans who believe Bush lied about the war has increased.

Thus, 53% of Americans support impeachment "if Bush did not tell the truth" and anywhere from 52% to 57% believe he did not tell the truth.

Do the math. We stand by the original headline. (And still hope Bush gets a blowjob so impeachment proceedings may begin.)

I hope people resist the urge to say what these results mean when they don't say what they mean, re: "53% support impeachment, period" vs. "53% support impeachment IF Bush lied" etc. I hope any such misstatements are not willful misstatements, otherwise, you are in the same ballpark as the people lying us into war.

Bush is a war criminal and should not only be impeached, but if it is proven he lied about the war, he should go to prison. He has abused human rights in the worst way.

And he also lied when he implied 'God' told him to go to war. This is the worst perversion of Christianity I've ever seen.

Jimmy Carter has a great book out about the democratic agenda --- which is to solve the world's problems through diplomatic means --- and the republican evangelical agenda --- which is to use military force to spread democracy! A great website that busts those Left Behind books in the most hilarious way is www.slacktivist.com

John Dean, presidential counsel (lawyer) to Nixon, thinks Cheney will be indicted (link here). For violation of the Espionage Act.

Here is a quote:

"Having read the indictment against Libby, I am inclined to believe more will be issued. In fact, I will be stunned if no one else is indicted.

Indeed, when one studies the indictment, and carefully reads the transcript of the press conference, it appears Libby's saga may be only Act Two in a three-act play. And in my view, the person who should be tossing and turning at night, in anticipation of the last act, is the Vice President of the United States, Richard B. Cheney."

I think what's TELLING is, only 53% "support impeachment if HE LIED".. That number -should- be 100%.. why? what kind of fucking moron thinks it's ok to LIE about going to war and killing thousands of American Troops, piss away $300 billion, kill 10s of thousands of civilians of a foreign country, etc etc? Yet Clinton was impeached over lying about a blowjob.. What's even MORE telling is, these assholes think it's "bad to lie about a blowjob", but it's OK to "lie about starting a war and killing lots of people". Nice.

"...if he lied..."?? There's no spin there. He did lie . Only frantic Bushevik spinning and manic juggling and "don't rock the boat" media can keep the remaining numbskulls from seeing what's in front of their faces.

BB.. go READ the article.. If you can't get your brain to function beyond the "headline", then you have no business posting comments. The article SAYS it's the "same question", and before that, it SAYS "...impeachment if he lied about the war in Iraq"

Give it a rest.. you're trying to discredit perfectly good info just because it makes you (and the rest of the nut-jobs still standing behind this treasonous administration) look ignorant.

Bottom line is, the ARTICLE CLEARY explains what the "poll question is".. and as I stated, it also 'says' something pretty fucked up about our society.. if not 100% of our country is calling for his impeachment 'if he lied' (which, we ALL know now, he did), then we have serious problems .. and, for the most part, those problems are thanks to dishonest shit-bags like you, BB.. All your lies and deciet and spin over the years has caused the American mentality to become very dilluted, and deluded for that matter.

http://www.impeachbushtattoo.org/
WEAR YOUR POLITICS ON YOUR EPIDERMIS (only temporarily, of course, until this nightmafre is over). BLOG YOUR SKIN. See photos of dozens who are already OUT THERE with the impeachment message.

Dredd - I sure hope John Dean is correct. I sure hope Fitzgerald isn't "pursuaded" to drop things. I see that coming and please prove me wrong future chain of events.

From Brad's link to afterdowningstreet.org, I found one of their articles that was particularly interesting to me, about the impeachment. It has the title, "The Constellation of Impeachment". The following two paragraphs are quotes taken from it:

"In the last week the nation has turned the corner on impeaching George W Bush. It has gone from a cry of protest and anger, to being the subtext of what is said and done at the highest levels of government. The tumblers are whirring, and one by one falling into place. The force of gravity is now on the side of it occurring, rather than it not occurring. Impeachment is a Trial by Constitution, and the search for probable cause has begun.

The long term economic crisis can be summed up in a simple phrase: we are repeating the mistakes of the late 1920's, when wages were allowed to erode, while easy credit masked the loss of buying power. The short form of this is that we have deflation for what Americans sell, and inflation for what we buy, and we are borrowing to hide the difference".

Then I found this googling about Cheney and what he's trying to do about the United States of America being able to continue torturing prisoners "if they aren't American's" - well duh....don't think we have TOO many reports of them torturing Americans yet. He want's an "exemption" - wtf?

"Cheney told his audience the United States doesn't engage in torture, these participants added, even though he said the administration needed an exemption from any legislation banning "cruel, inhuman or degrading" treatment in case the president decided one was necessary to prevent a terrorist attack".

They - the administration - amaze me at their angry, hateful, potty-mouthed, tantrum-throwing, name calling, blind as hell march toward their complete dictatorship. My son is about to head back over to Iraq for another year, as most of you know. I'm sorry to bring it up again, but I now have to fear (a fear worse than his death I think) him being captured and how he would be treated in retaliation for what is being done to their people captured by us. This administration, representing us Americans, CAN'T BE allowed to continue the prisoner abuse - and then those same asswipes turning around and sending our son's and daughter's over there to face such a potentially horrible fate!!!!! *angry* sorry...but it's true. Think about that horrible thought of your child, or parent, or relative, or friend, taken prisoner over there with them knowing what we're doing to their prisoners. I can't stand that thought. We have to stop them somehow now.

Sorry for the ranting tonight, this prisoner abuse thing is just close to my heart right now.

LMAO.. people like me? Who want to get the truth out to the public, but are constantly fighting people who like to lie and spin and distort and distract.. and think it's FUN to piss people off and pick fights?

You might not be a Republican, but the criminals who took over the Republican party pander to the masses of Republicans.. and the masses of Republicans tend to be selfish greedy fucks who portend to "care" and "be charitable", yet insist it's OK to let people starve to DEATH in this country? and say it's fine if American's can't get health care cause it some how their own fault? Never pulling their heads out of their asses enough to see the FACTS about how societies work? They can't, they're too selfish to get around to that.. if they admit the FACTS, they have to admit that their bullshit position of being "compassionate" is a rouse. They have to ADMIT that they pander to corperations and corperate-welfare because THEY get money from their "investments", paid for with taxpayer dollars.

You coming here and mentioning some bullshit about "now now.. be careful with your headline.. people might not read the article and then it looks like you are saying something that isn't true".. and AGAIN, the POINT in contrast to YOUR position is, it's pathetic that 100% of the "people polled" didn't think he should be impeached if he lied..

What's wrong in my logic? please show me where I made some mistake in my thinking.. in my reasoning..

And as a note, the reason I'm quick to be on your ass is, I'm pretty sure you're the same BB from RawStory's comments on a few threads where you tend to defend Bush and his cronies and partners in crime (litteral crime, not figurative). Is this your post?

"Does Mr. Fertik overstate the results? Does 51 percent constitute a 'clear majority?' More importantly, didn't the question ask whether Congress should CONSIDER impeachment, not (directly anyway)impeach? Any valuable efforts in this area should not be clouded by shifty sales pitches."

See, YOU seem quick to "minimalize" this report... here's some numbers for you.. 51% of the people polled, compared to 45% against, means between the 2 options presented (I'm presuming it's leaving out the "uh.. I guess I don't know" crowd), it's over 53% with "opinions on the issue" FAVOR impeachment (if he lied).. right? are you saying 53% isn't a "clear majority" in your post above? I mean, 51% of "everyone" is STILL a majority, no matter how you cut it, but with the numbers presented, it's 53%... even MORE of a majority.. not like someone said 50.0081% for.. clear majority.... we're talking 51 to 45.. hello? what's not "clear" about that?

And, being upset about "what we've done with the war in Iraq" is damned vague, don't you think? What are you angry about? should we have sent more troops? should we have bombed more civilians? should we be shooting more people? Just mad about all the history we let be destroyed? what?

He certainly lied about the war. The investigation will have to prove everything however to lead to any conviction, and that is why Phase 2 must immediately be enacted and the obstructers held in cuffs.

Back at you shortly Doug E. and Savantser, I'm putting 3 little kids to bed. And I promise I want to see this process proceed justly, with impeachment a likely possible outcome. I will respond soon, but it looks like tomorrow.

OK --- for starters, the survey question to which 53% responded was that he should be impeached 'if he lied.' The headline said 53% said he should be impeached. Period. This is misleading. I don't have time to get into other things you have brought up until tomorrow, but for now, I'd just like to know that because I think he should be impeached, if he lied, I'd just like to note that 'we' who think he (and others) who should be impeached would best be served by a cautious yet firm, heartfelt and honest appraisal. The headline is misleading. Had the survey question been phrased "Should the President be Impeached?" and 53% responded yes, than I wouldn't have responded. But that is not what the question said. Have a nice night. Back at you tomorrow, and as sad/mad I am about the thousands of people we have killed on what appears to be the basis of lies, I think the headline above should be reconsidered.

BB is right we shouldn't use misleading headlines like New Poll: 53% of Americans Support Bush Impeachment!" by leaving "if he lied" off the end, but Savanster is also right about WTF is wrong with people if they don't vote 100% for impeachment "if he lied".

Look, the bottom line is, HEADLINES aren't supposed to tell the entire story.. -ever-.. get it? The "more information" you try to put into a headline, the longer it gets.. right? Headlines are SUPPOSED to get your attention.. it's "advertising"..

The POINT is, the FIRST line (not burried some place in the article, not omitted in the article) says EXACTLY what the "poll question" is..

What I take offense to is, trying to say that "making a headline that doesn't cover 100% of the story in detail" is like what Bush did in lying about Iraq and WMDs and Yellowcake and terrorists. There is NO comparison, period, ever, in -any- context.

Republicans and the neoCons LIE.. They would have have the headline "we" do, but never state what the question was.. They would do their best to only let you see the "few words" that had a "certian meaning" without letting you get the full context. That is NOT what Brad did.. and I take offense to anyone that tries to imply there's something wrong with what is being said here, or how it's being said.

Put that into context with Medium Moron up there and his "NICE SPIN" comment.. get it? Why is it that when people doing the RIGHT thing don't do it with 100% exhaustive detail on the very surface it's a problem, but when people doing the WRONG thing completely FABRICATE EVIDENCE, it's tolerated?

I don't think BB -is- right.. I think BB is being "overly liberal" in his/her thinking.. Trying to say "you really should make sure you spoon feed and wipe the public" is offensive to me.. it's why I dislike "flaming liberals".. WTF is wrong with people? Take a LITTLE personal responsibility for fuck's sake.. READ the ARTICLE..

The only way I could agree with -any- criticism of this article would be if there were any "lies" or "misleading representations" IN THE ARTICLE.. There aren't.. I've read ALL KINDS of headlines from the "press" that were only part of the story.. they -idea- is to get you to READ the article.. If you expect to "get your news" just from headlines, you're in for a hell of a wake up call... Hell, it's exactly that lazy "30 second sound bite" mentality that has this country fucked up like it is now anyway.. Take the time to BECOME INFORMED.. don't expect -everything- to be handed to you.. that's just pathetic and lazy.. You know, how Republicans refer to anyone that isn't rich? Their false association they make to the masses to win support from OTHER PEOPLE who are TOO LAZY to become "truely" informed?.. get it?

No, the first line under the headline did not refer to what the headline was referring to. The first line referred to an earlier survey in June. Without getting into why the details matter for the misleading nature of the communication further, you are long-winded and wrong, Savantster. You are not helping things. An easy fix here would just make the headline a little longer, and include a second line, like other BradBlog headlines. p.s. what does LMAO stand for? Something nice and loving?

Hey --- here's something nobody can ignore that's a serious problem in California concerning Proposition 75 AND PROPAGANDA!! Take a look at this TV ad put out by (who else) the Repubs:

(There's no way to link to this exact post of Tuesday, November 01, 2005, but it's the second one at the present time.)

Here is the final of three images (from UggaBugga Blogspot site) which is absolutely apalling ---

Hey, look! The ad says Proposition 75 is supported by Democrats. They're at the top of the list. But can Proposition 75 be accurately portrayed as supported by Democrats?

Go to the California Democratic Party webpage for the propositions, and you see this:

Х VOTE NO on Proposition 75

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Read this article to find out more about Proposition 75 and to understand that the REAL agenda is to stop funds coming into the DEMOCRATIC Party ONLY while Corporate funds coming into the REPUBLICAN Party are A-OK.

Their plan is to squash the ability for the Democratic Party to get any campaign finance money. As much as I hate the way our laws are written currently regarding Campaign Finance, the playing field should remain level.

I personally believe there should be a LIMIT to how much a Political Party is allowed to SPEND and it should be low enough that our Green & Libertarian Parties can compete. AND so that any person, not just those who happen to be born into a super-wealthy elite family, could run for office --- even for President. That would be the AMERICAN way I believe in.

[snip] ... Supporters of Proposition 75 are hoping to persuade voters with three dubious arguments.

First, that current law assuring all public employees the right to opt out of political contributions is not sufficient. What Proposition 75 does is add yet another layer of administrative costs that are likely to far surpass what unions will be able to spend.

... Second, proponents insist that public employees should not be able to contribute to elected officials whom they negotiate with. But unions don't elect politicians, voters do.

Proposition 75 creates a double standard with no restrictions on businesses that receive direct financial gain from the decisions of those who receive their contributions. Developers and real estate interests who are among the largest donors to Schwarzenegger, for example, have benefited from vetoes and the governor's support for loosening environmental quality protections. Why no limits on their cash for favors?

Third, there is the argument made by Schwarzenegger and the Mercury News editorial board that Democrats are too ``dependent'' on union contributions. The logic here is that Democrats, like Schwarzenegger, should become exclusively dependent on corporate donors who would become the sole influence in determining public policy.

... If Gov. Schwarzenegger were truly interested in cleaning up our political system, he would join us in sponsoring legislation or an initiative to take all money out of politics, with no loopholes for his ample array of corporate friends.

After reading the comments of "BB" and "Medium Right" I've added an update to the item. Please read it.

Also, given that "Medium Right" began his trolling career here at BRAD BLOG by claiming to be a Democrat or a Liberal or a Progressive with the name "Medium Left," and posting disingenous comments in order to support that particular that fiction, it is ironic (to say the least) that he/she would attempt to accuse anyone else of spinning anything!

The caveat "if he lied about the war" should be added every time, no question. Get it right.

That said, a big part of the problem is how the polling companies ask questions. Is "lying about the war" the only possible ground for impeachment?
How about deliberate violations of the Geneva Convention (denial of rights)? How about two stolen elections (deliberate fraud)? How about withheld evidence from investigating committees (re 9/11, Abu Ghraib, court nominees)? Misuse of taxpayer money for pro-administration propaganda?

Here are some thoughts, Brad --- just because the sponsors of the poll headlined their story like you did does not mean the headline is right. Take a peek at the latest headline at Raw Story on this story --- it seems to reflect the question more accurately. In particular, it takes care to note that a majority supports CONSIDERATION of impeachment, not impeachment period, and consideration of impeachment IF HE LIED.

re: do the math --- we 'know' that slightly over half the people polled responded that Congress should consider impeachment if he lied, and that slightly over half think he lied. We don't know how those responders overlap, however, and I'd be more comfortable with your math if there was a higher percentage of people who think he lied. I read the bottom line as people want this looked into more thoroughly, and respectfully stand by my concern about your headline.

If 52% of people interviewed said "Bush lied," I submit that the true percentage is higher.

There's a reluctance on the part of many "nice people" to accuse any president of lying, in the same way most people won't say "My math teacher was a bastard" or "The Boy Scout leader in my hometown was a queer." It's respect for authority, compounded by a fear of "what people will think" if a naughty word is used. Add devout Christianity to the mix, then ask yourself, "Would someone who takes his pastor's words and the Bible literally ever call the president a liar?"

They might not say it. But I'll bet they're thinking it now, and that the real number is 62% or 72%.

"No, the first line under the headline did not refer to what the headline was referring to."

Yes, the first line DOES refer to what the headline refers to (not to be confused with the multi-part statements in the headline). Go read it.. or better yet, here is the first line of the article (ALSO clearly readable as part of the blog entry.. not like some statement that has you digging around or following links to see it)

""ast June, 42% of Americans in a Zogby poll felt that Bush should be impeached if he lied about the War on Iraq while 50% opposed."

Hmm.. looks pretty clear to me what we're discussing.. right? "how many people think Shrubby should be impeached if he lied"? Oh, and "consider impeachment" is the SAME as "impeach", if you have -any- understanding of the process. You "look into if there seems to be cause" (consider?).. What, if there's CAUSE, perhaps ignore it? Find out there's "good reason", but don't do it anyway? Criminals don't get punished in your world, or what? If you -start- the impeachment process, it's pretty pathetic not to finish it IF YOU FIND REASON TO IMPEACH.. lemme add that to be "clear" for you..

"Without getting into why the details matter for the misleading nature of the communication further, you are long-winded and wrong, Savantster."

Lemme get this straight. I"m long winded and make sure I try to fully explain myself.. like YOU suggest we all do, so far as to make an overly long "title" because people can't be bothered to READ THE ARTICLE and expected to have at least a 10th grade comprehension level? WTF? (that's 'what the fuck'). If you are going to say "I'm wrong", then you have an obligation to explain "why" you think "I'm wrong".. see, YOU are doing something MUCH more akin to what Bush/Rethugs do than what Brad did with that blog entry.. Can't you see that? Either explain why you think "I'm wrong" (so I have an oportunity to grow.. see, if I don't know what you mean and you refuse to explain, I don't have the oportunity to admit I was 'wrong'.. I can only become more dismissive of your position based on it looking like you have an "opinion" with nothing substantial to back it up), or stop saying I'm wrong.. simple as that.

Again.. and for the last 'long winded' time. The 'headline' for the article makes an impression, and is catchy to get people to read it (not to mention, it's not even Brad's original creation). ALL media outlets do that, don't they? I've seen some seriously misleading headlines in my time. The POINT of "reading news" is to.. um.. unless I'm confused.. READ? So, you see the blog entry (again, the bulk of most blog entries are right there, in the open, fully readable, not hidden or in any context that makes it 'challenging' or 'a chore' to read), and the FIRST line of the entry/article explains what the article is about.. that's called the opening statement in "composition" and "literature" courses. The "premise" of the entire article then becomes "this poll where people said 'impeach if he lied' ".. All the other information points back to the "original question", which is what the entry STARTED with.. Sure, it takes a little bit of reading comprehension (I said 10th grade, but I'm pretty sure my 13 yr old daughter in the 7th grade would be something much LESS than confused), but there's nothing "misleading" about the "blog entry".. AND, comparing the "headline" to what "Rethugs do" is offensive and innacurate. You are trying to say that Brad's lack of a few words in the title of the blog entry (DESPITE all the other info IN the entry) is like "Bush saying Iraq had WMDs when they didn't".. uh.. what? Can't you see that there's nothing even remotely the "same" there? Bush never released the intel so we could read it.. he never said anything to explain what he meant.. oh, wait.. he did.. "mushroom cloud"..

I don't get why you think I'm wrong.. Other than you seem to think "we're being misleading", and I don't think we are. You seem to be SO tied up with that one detail, you can't see the bigger amount of information presented. I'll ask you this.. at what point do we stop spoon-feeding the public? At what point do people have an obligation to invest at least a TINY BIT of energy into learning something, or reading something, or giving a shit about their country? At what point do we cut someone like Brad who's doing shitloads of good, tons of work, and busting his balls to help enlightent people and tell the people he's trying to help "hey.. don't be a friggn' moron.. READ, comprehend, care"?

Here's a bit of insight for you, about me. I despise "bleeding heart liberals" on occasion.. know why? Shit like this. "Please, we have to bust our asses extra hard to make sure the super lazy don't have to think! it's not fair to make them act like people! they were abused as children!". Again with my "at what point" questions.. I fully understand the effects of abuse.. fully get that people -will- make bad choices and get themselves into trouble if they had a bad childhood. I get that.. and I'm sympathetic, really I am. I think we need to break the cycle of Poverty.. and I think we need to provide theropy to anyone that was raised in that kind of terrible environment. I think we have an obligation to try and help people become better people.. But I -also- believe that there's a point when you have to say "that person doesn't want to be saved", and cut bait. If you think you can "force health" on someone, you're sadly deluded. Maybe you can "brain-wash" someone who's not very smart and not very strong willed, but you can't "force someone to be good" if they don't want to.. and THOSE people should be left to their own devices. We can't "save the world" if the people to be saved don't want to be, period. THAT'S why I get offended when people try to make things "super easy" for "everyone" and actually discourage people from learning, growing, become better citizens. Spoon feeding 30 second soundbites to the "masses" isn't gonna fix our country.. it's not possible. Life is a LOT more than 30 second soundbites, and people need to learn patience above all else. This "gimme gimme gimme NOW" society we live in is self-destructive, and some want to pander to that to "fix things".. can't be done, SHOULDN'T be done. People need to wake up and take personal responsibility.

Dredd.. I stated why I'm on BB. I don't see the point they are trying to make given my explinations. All I'm getting back from BB is "too bad, I'm not going to explain, but you're wrong".. Sorry, but -that- is as bad as what "they" do.. not Brad's blog entry.

I've stated, and pretty plainly I think, that it doesn't take very much reading comprehension to understand the blog entry. There is -nothing- decieving about the "blog entry". If you take the "headline" out of context, sure.. perhaps that could be misleading, but that's a Rethug tactic. We have all the information needed to -easily- understand that we're talking about "if he lied".

I have no problem admitting "I'm wrong", if I am in fact, wrong. If it's a matter of OPINION (and this seems to be the case here), there's no "right or wrong" about it.. and I don't think I've said BB is "wrong". I've given my reasoning for my opinion, and been TOLD that -I- was wrong, with no explination provided.

Though, given the opinion-esqe context for the debate with BB, I think I'm done responding (unless there's a decent explination of 'why I'm wrong'..)

Here is an example of potential "misleading" by the wing-nuts.. The general idea of the article is that the Forged Uranium Contracts weren't "about war", they were set up for "financial gain" by someone.. The FBI refused to "divulge any more info"..

So, now, they are putting in the seeds to allow "plausable deniability" on the docs.. see, no one "meant to mislead the government", they stumbled on the documents "normally" like they would any "real" intelligence.. it was all just a "misunderstanding".. see, these bad guys over there were just trying to steal some money from someone.. and we stumbled on their fake NUKE CONTRACTS... and used that to go to war.. how could we have known it was a blackmail (or undercutting of contracts, or some other illegal financial activity)? We saw it, and "rightfully" got scared that Saddam might be looking for nukes.. give us a break, ok?

But, that STILL wouldn't account for being TOLD the documents were FAKE -before- he went and blamed the British. AND, if you believe all the appologists who say 'british intel could have been different docs.. how do we know?' (to which I respond.. "started a war on documents we've never seen? you're ok with that??").. what it -will- do is allow them to try and "spin and minimalize" the documents, and try to distract from the lie.. offer in "reasonable doubt" since our government "didn't fabricate them".. (which still remains to be seen, the FBI is being tight-lipped.. which I think is wrong, that info should be put in the public domain.. -any- company playing games with WMD materials for monitary gain should be exposed and shut down).

Anyway, I'm done with this. BB is suggesting that Brad (and us who have no problem with this blog entry) is somehow "doing harm" and compares it to what this administration does. Personally, I think that reference is what's doing harm.. the wing-nuts will latch onto comments like that and say "see? even their own wackos think they're liars".. Stop deflecting the energy away from this administration, especially over trivial things like the concern with this blog entry. Anyone over 7th grade should be able to UNDERSTAND it.. if not, send them to work for Bush.

Did you see where the Sacramento City Council passed a resolution last tuesday to come out against the war and demand the troops come home. The vote was 8-1 in favor. The only dissenter was ex-sheriff Robbie Waters.

Since then they have been flooded with threatening e-mails. They have even received death threats.

Savantster --- I agree with you, especially the statement below. I took out the f-word, because I don't use it any more. But you are SO right. If it's proven he lied (which is obvious)everyone should support impeachment. As I said earlier, Bush is a war criminal and should be impeached. He and Mike Brown should go to prison. He has abused human rights in the worst way, by pretending to be unconscious.

And he also lied when he implied 'God' told him to go to war. This is the worst perversion of Christianity I've ever seen.

I agree with Savantster's statement here:
I think what's TELLING is, only 53% "support impeachment if HE LIED".. That number -should- be 100%.. why? what kind of moron thinks it's ok to LIE about going to war and killing thousands of American Troops, piss away $300 billion, kill 10s of thousands of civilians of a foreign country, etc etc? Yet Clinton was impeached over lying about a blowjob.. What's even MORE telling is, these assholes think it's "bad to lie about a blowjob", but it's OK to "lie about starting a war and killing lots of people".

Famous last words:
"U.S. officials never expected that we were going to open garages and find weapons of mass destruction." —National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, May 12, 2003

"I think the burden is on those people who think he didn't have weapons of mass destruction to tell the world where they are." –White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, July 9, 2003

"We know he's been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." –Vice President Dick Cheney, "Meet The Press" March 16, 2003

"I don't know anybody that I can think of who has contended that the Iraqis had nuclear weapons." –Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, June 24, 2003

"Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties." —President Bush, discussing the Iraq war with Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson, after Robertson told him he should prepare the American people for casualties

I am disappointed with our society in how we as Americans support our president. Mockery of our President is not how to solve the issue, we need to vote, discuss it, and study the issue like civilized people.